SUDHANSHU MAULI TRIPATHI Vs. MEENA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1995, passed in Matrimonial Case No. 20 of 1990/141 of 1992 (Sudhanshu Mauli Tripathi vs. Meena Kumari @ Daijee and Anr.), by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, dismissing the suit for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act lies before this Court and is to be heard on facts as well as on law. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the position of the parties as it existed at the stage of the suit.

(2.) THE petitioner, Sudhanshu Mauli Tripathi, the husband, had filed a petition-cum-plaint under Section 13 for grant of a decree of divorce-cum-annulment of marriage from the defendant No. 1, Meena Kumari. THE case of the petitioner as set out in the plaint is that his parents were looking for an educated girl having at least a Graduate qualification for his marriage. It is stated that the parents and relatives of the defendant misrepresented by impressing upon his family that the defendant was a graduate and obtained consent of marriage by fraud and deception. THE marriage was solemnized on 22.4.1984, as per Hindu religious rites at the residence of the defendant at Kankarbagh, Patna. 2.1. It is further stated that within two months of the marriage, the defendant started presenting unwarranted conduct and misbehavior with the petitioner and his parents and also using disgraceful language. Defendant No. 1 was having very affable relationship with defendant No. 2, Nandan Dubey. When he made a surprise visit to his residence during working hours on 15.5.1984, he found them in a highly objectionable position and he asked defendant No. 2, Nandan Dubey to leave the place immediately and also tried to reason out with defendant No. 1 but she began to quarrel. THE petitioner contended that the behaviour of defendant No. 1, towards defendant No. 2 indicated that they were in illicit relationship. It is further stated that defendant No. 1 continuously misbehaved with his parents. 2.2. It was also stated that on 26.6.1984, when the petitioner returned from office, he was told that defendant No. 1 had left for her Naihar alongwith her belongings and when the petitioner went to her house, he was chastised by her parents for not allowing her freedom to meet her friends and relatives. In between 1985 to 1988, the petitioner made several visits to the parental house of defendant No.1 in order to pacify her and get her back, but the same did not bear any fruitful result. It is further stated that in the year 1987, on the day of Dushehra, when the petitioner went to meet defendant No. 1, he found the defendants in compromising position. THE petitioner made complaint before the parents of defendant No. 1, but they did not take any action rather abused him and asked him to leave the house. It is further stated in the plaint that on 4.3.1990, defendant No. 1 was roaming with an unknown person in New Market, Patna, and upon seeing him, she became furious and tried to assault him with her Chappal but he managed to escape. 2.3. it is further stated that a number of cases were instituted against him at the behest of defendant No. 1 and her family members namely:? (I) Patliputra P.S. Case No. 218 of 1991 dated 31.10.1991 under Sections 498A, 384 of the Indian Penal Code. (II) Patliputra P.S. Case No. 118 of 1992 dated 16.2.1992 under Sections 307, 377, 338 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. (III) Case No. 510 of 1992 in the Court of S.D.O., Patna Sadar under Section 107 Cr.P.C. (IV) Sanha No. 824 dated 29.8.1990 at Kaji Mohammadpur P.S., District-Muzaffarpur. (V) Complaint petition to the D.I.G., Mahilakosang, Patna. THE petitioner thus contends that he has been subjected to severe acts of cruelty at the hands of defendant No. 1 who has deserted him. THE petitioner also charges defendant No. 1 of adultery. 2.4. In the circumstances stated above, prayer was made to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce.

(3.) UPON consideration of the plaint, written statement(s), amendment petition, the oral arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials on record the learned Family Court was pleased to dismiss the suit vide judgment and order dated 29.7.1995. The learned Court below held that the petitioner had failed to prove the charges of adultery, cruelty, and desertion against defendant No. 1. It was held that the petitioner had no cause of action to obtain a decree of divorce. The suit was dismissed with costs. The petitioner thus is before us by way of the present appeal assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned Court below.